The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No consensus for a particular action has emerged in the discussion herein. Discussion can always continue on the article's talk page. NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apple iCar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I do not believe this is notable. It's purely speculative about a car which no-one knows anything about, and so there is no real content to this page. I therefore think it should be deleted. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* Speedy Keep This is a stub (aka DYK, GA, FA in the making) on a project by a possibly notable company, for which numerous reliable (?) secondary sources (Forbes, TIME, WSJ) are provided. --Gaff (talk) 21:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep per multiple sources: [1][2][3][4][5][6], Personally I see no reason to Delete. –Davey2010^Talk 22:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm quite confused by your vote, especially given what you voted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samsung Galaxy S6 (2nd nomination)... This subject has way fewer RS, and contains much more speculation which is why it should be deleted per WP:CRYSTAL. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 00:48, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The phone hasen't gained wide coverage and didn't have much RS - All of which this car has, Had this not had wide coverage and alot of RS It would've been an easy delete, Just like had the phone had wide coverage and alot of RS It would've been an easy Keep, Cheers, –Davey2010^Talk 01:15, 1 March 2015 (UTC) Struck as was perhaps unhelpful and well we all have different opinions and all that. –Davey2010^Talk 01:58, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Sources galore per above. By speculation age to source ratio it is not bad here. If the topic is left to stale at only this much content after, say, a year, then we would have a case to delete. But you won't know now. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 01:01, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmm... even in a year, notable now is notable then. WP:DEFUNCTS and WP:NOTTEMP --Gaff (talk) 01:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It is a game changer in cars, as iPad has been in (portable) computers.--Lagoset (talk) 16:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Assuming Apple does something that actually changes the game in any way other than having other car companies and prospective car companies saying "oops, let's not do that". Guy Harris (talk) 03:31, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong DeleteREDIRECT (I'll switch to redirect/merge, article is still much too speculative but is an OK section of a larger one). Since when was Wikipedia full of unconfirmed speculation? Re-reading WP:CRYSTAL this article should be deleted immediately, for the exact same reason the article Samsung Galaxy S6 was deleted today because it isn't being officially revealed until tomorrow. Sure it has press coverage but until something if officially confirmed, it should be deleted. --> these comments were unsigned by User:EoRdE6

• Speedy delete?? Under what CSD criteria?? Check the references for the degree of confirmation in place. Reuters: "Apple studies self-driving car, auto industry source says". This is not same as rumors of royal baby being born with three heads... --Gaff (talk) 00:20, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I would also argue that the rationale I see for CSD on Samsung phone was not appropriate, since the times have changed when the AfD discussion occurred and the phone is set to release tomorrow. By this rationale, Apollo 11 would have been deleted on July 15, 1969... --Gaff (talk) 00:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• @Gaff: Fixed that thanks. In reply to your note, there are hundreds of sources about the Galaxy S6, but it was deleted because they are rumours and leaks like this. Apollo 11 was confirmed by the government before it launched was it not? The Galaxy S6 could be called the EyeBanana for all we bloody know. Sure I could make an article for the iPhone 6S because sure it will probably happen, and sites already have " confirmed leaks" but until Apple confirms it, the page won't be made. You can argue your logic, but wiki guidelines and rules such as WP:CRYSTAL are more important here. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 00:43, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @EoRdE6: Yeah, you have good point, more I think about it... I can't find much to support that the car would be named iCar... However, there is a gray area between too soon and time for launch. If we insisted that only "officially announced" items get articles, then articles on US foreign policy would be a dry read. --Gaff (talk) 01:04, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, I am familiar with WP:CRYSTAL as policy, but there are gray areas for interpretation and that is where things get interesting... --Gaff (talk) 01:08, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• REDIRECT and merge to Apple_Inc.#Electric_Vehicles. changing my tune, mostly per EoRdE6 and further reading. There is nothing to assert it would be called the iCar. Some sources call it Titan and others CarPlay. So the title of the article is WP:OR. This is just too much speculation for an article, but the reliably sourced aspects discussion would add to the paragraph in the article on Apple_Inc.#Electric_Vehicles.--Gaff (talk) 03:29, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• REDIRECT and merge to Apple Inc.#Electric Vehicles. Thank you, Gaff, that's the best suggestion I've seen. The rumor is notable, but it's still a rumor; the WSJ article is behind a paywall, so I don't know whether they have any evidence better than "somebody who claims they're from Apple says XXX" or "some unnamed source says they were at Apple and they're doing XXX". Guy Harris (talk) 03:43, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. We shouldn't be second-guessing the RS (that's why we consider them RS in the first place: so they can do the heavy lifting and filter out the BS for us). While redirects are WP:CHEAP, this is a big enough story (given Time, Forbes and the WSJ all instantly pouncing on it) to keep on the deck. Pax 11:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• problem: the WP:RS do not consistently refer to the project as the iCar. That is why I propose merging it. Would you support moving the article to an appropriate namespace? Oh wait, there is none, since there is no agreement as to the name of the car. A merg does not require second guessing or removal of any sourced content, but avoids the WP:OR of presuming the name of the car. For all we know it will be called the "Steve Jobs-mobile". --Gaff (talk) 15:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moving an article to a new name is a Twinkle function; having a less-that-optimal name is not grounds for deleting it. Rather than an AfD, we should be having a discussion about what to entitle it. I propose renaming to "Apple electric car", with "Apple car" redirecting to it, as those are the search terms users are most likely to enter. Pax 21:17, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have to correct you, moving is not a Twinkle function. Notice it isn't in the Twinkle tab and everyoje has access to it. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 00:09, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

<forehead smack>. You are right, of course. (My recommendation above stands.) Pax 04:35, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm on the fence about whether to keep it or not, but at the very least, we don't know what the actual branding for the car will be; the article, if kept, should be just "Apple Car", since that's a more "neutral" (for lack of a better word) title than "iCar". EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep—the concept of a vehicle produced by the company is still in the news weeks after the initial story broke last month. "iCar" is just one possible name, in keeping with the company's previous pattern to have "i"- named products (iMac, iBook, iTunes, iBooks, iPod, iPhone, iPad), and sources do use it on that basis. That doesn't mean we can't move the article to a different title, like "Apple electric vehicle" since the company has said it's more of a minivan than a car. Other appropriate redirects should be created as well, like "Apple electric car", "Apple car", etc. Imzadi 1979 → 19:16, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• the company's previous pattern Emphasis on previous, as per Apple TV and Apple Watch, not "iTV" or "iWatch". Perhaps sources that use "iCar" on that basis simply haven't been paying attention.
• the company has said it's more of a minivan than a car [Citation needed] for Apple saying anything about any vehicle that they might - or might not! - be developing. Guy Harris (talk) 19:42, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect and merge as above. It's notable, but notable enough for inclusion as a section in an article, not for an article in its own right. Relentlessly (talk) 20:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect I believe this car will exist. But that's the issue, it doesn't exist yet an this is speculation, which is explicitly covered in WP:Crystal. This should be merged into the EV section.--Buffaboy (talk) 04:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I created this article and like to highlight few critical points - First In my corrected version I just mentioned apple automobile project (no speculation its confirmed in multiple references forbes etc) it can be anything a car or automobile software or automobile device as different references sources suggest and further mention should be avoided till clear information is available.Second Project Titan code of automobile project was also confirmed and no speculation. Third confirmed part was hiring of experienced auto professionals by apple. The article just mentioned three sets of confirmed information. Issue is now the article is further edited as apple icar electric automobile version also mention about electic minivan , Steve jobs plan of creating cars , production by 2020 all that is speculation and should be removed and only confirmed information should be present in the article.-Optrimes (talk) 08:13, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Your telling me it is "confirmed" yet I can't find where it says that. Could you please support this with links to official sources that clearly say these things are confirmed by Apple. Thanks! EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 14:41, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Apple_Inc.#Electric_vehicles. There's no doubt the mainstream press (WSJ, Time, Reuters, Bloomberg, Forbes, etc) has jumped on this. Normally, I would say that meets WP:N in spades, but fundamentally, this is still just a rumor, contrary to WP:CRYSTAL. Whatever is worth saying about it can be said as a section of the Apple article until it actually exists. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:28, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.